Talk:Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki

Untitled

This is no badly named, but I don't know who this guy is from the article. Which Michael (number) is this, or does he have a better name? JHK

Move

This should be moved to Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki or Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki, I think. Comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think if anything this article needs to be moved to Michał Wiśniowiecki of Poland per Wikipedia naming convention on naming royals? The current format looks ackward. Or maybe King Michał Wiśniowiecki of Poland? Gryffindor 20:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Names - English pages only.

Note: Google plain seems to ignore the difference between diactrics or not. Google Books however does not, thus I did most the searchers without Polish diactrics.

• Michal Korybut Wisniowiecki/Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki Google 738, Books 3
• Michal Wisniowiecki/Michał Wiśniowiecki Google 371, Books 2 (note this is not that precise, as there have been other Michał Wiśniowiecki's - although they are much less famous then the king Korybut)
• Michal Korybut/Michał Korybut Google 788 Books 10 (this means there is about 50 plain Google, since there is 738 of MKW. Google Books is misleading here, (see examples) so I suggest to treat it as 3=0)
• Michal of Poland/Michał of Poland 4, Books 0
• Michael Korybut Wisniowiecki Google 987, Books 3
• Michael Wisniowiecki Google 580, Books 13
• Michael Korybut+Poland (to remove others) Google 1040 (note: that's about 50 new) Books 7
• Michael of Poland Google 71, Books 3

Counted by --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Analysis: Michal vs Michael: 1100:1600 in Google, 3:19 in Print. It does appear that Michael is slightly more popular then Michal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But also it is clearly shown that 'Michael of Poland' is a wiki-invented strange name. The only acceptable two names are the two I listed in the opening of this section: Michał or Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki. Since he was the first elected king from inside Poland, I'd vote for retention of his Polish name, instead of the Englicized 'Michael'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Name

In addition to above, see aslo Wikipedia:Naming_convention#Polish_monarchs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be moved, at least to Michael Korybut or Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki. If even you think this, then you should probably just move it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

would anyone object if I move to Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki? john k 04:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First Polish monarch since Sigismund II?

I'm not sure that this statement makes much sense. The Jagiellons were a Lithuanian dynasty. Sigismund II was certainly born and raised in Poland, and I suppose we can consider him Polish in that sense, but if you consider him Polish in that regard, don't you have to consider Wladyslaw IV and John Casimir Polish as well? That is to say, what definition of "Polish" includes the Jagiellons and excludes the later Vasa rulers, who were likewise born in Poland? Michael is arguably the first Polish ruler since the death of Casimir the Great, isn't he? john k 04:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this statement refers to the 'first from Polish nobility' (szlachta). Jagiellons were not Polish nobility, nor was W4W; in 17-18th centuries there was actually quite an interesting debate among nobility about about pros and cons of electing a 'Polish' king (at least in origins); one of Wiśniowiecki 'electoral ads' went along the lines of 'back to the Piasts' (of course the fact that his family had Ruthenian origins were conviniently ommitted by his suporters)... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So, as I said, he's arguably the first Polish monarch since Casimir III, right? The Jagiellons were no more Polish than the later Vasas in this sense, were they? john k 12:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I thinkt the text which currently states 'of Polish origin' is quite acceptable. Granted, the latter Jagiellons were quite polonized, but I think there is no denying the origins (which in J. case were Lithuanian, and Vasas, Swedish).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, the article says he was the first monarch of Polish origins since Sigismund II Augustus. But Sigismund Augustus was from a Lithuanian family, and had no Polish ancestors. The current article seems to be saying that the later Jagiellons were "of Polish origins," but that the later Vasas were not. john k 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

New naming discussion

Three years later, I no longer think my proposal above has merit. We should avoid anglicizing first names, and the name of this king was Michał, not Michael. Further, even if we were to agree on Micheal, there is no justification whatsoever for dropping his surname as was done in this move. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We should anglicize first names whenever the anglicized version is more common in English-language references. Name is not something that a person is born with; names are given and different cultures give different names to different people. When English-language sources use a name other than the person's "real" name, why would we insist on using the "real name"? Who is William Bradley Pitt and who is Brad Pitt? Do I need to list all English-language books which refer to this king as Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki (not to mention the books which refer to him as Michael Korybut)? It would certainly be easier to list those which refer to him Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, for the number of those books is tiny. I really don't understand this fight against the most common name rule when the most common name is an anglicized version of the name; for example, I don't see many Polish Wikipedians fighting to move Elżbieta II to Elizabeth II, nor do I see Spanish Wikipedians fighting to move Isabel II to Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been eleven days. Is there still opposition to the most common name? (I forgot about this issue; I can thank SmackBot for bringing the article on my watchlist again) Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to Anglicize this either. "Michal" is used in many English language sources, for example in Norman Davies classic history of Poland, "God's Playground" - [1]. So yes, there is opposition. radek (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And it is still not explained why we should drop his surname from the new name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to drop his surname; I dropped it because "Michael Korybut" is unambigious and descriptive enough (as is Marie Antoinette, where there is no need for of Austria or de Habsbourg-Lorraine). I wouldn't object to keeping the surname though. "Michal" is indeed used in many English-language sources, but it seems to me that "Michael" is used far more often. For example, Piotr Stefan Wandycz's history of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the present uses "Michael". Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If nobody is going to bother discussing this issue, I will be bold. I shouldn't need to ask for an answer. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been four days since I asked for an answer and eight days since my last argument. I'm moving the article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alexander Jagiellon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

The discussion that took place three years ago resulted in this article being named Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki. For three years, nobody disputed that. The consensus did not "expire" after three years. If one wishes to rename the article, please start a new discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I am not sure who you had in mind, but the information about the Order was inserted almost six years ago by an anonymous user. I agree with you - it seems rather trivial. Surtsicna (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's do a proper WP:RM which will be properly advertised. PS. And for the record, it's not true that nobody disputed that - I did numerous times. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A proper discussion should be made about the title Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki. The title Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki was a result of a discussion you participated in. You abandoned the discussion and I made the move. The article remained titled Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki for three years until it was moved without a prior discussion and without a consensus, so it only makes sense to discuss that title, don't you think? Surtsicna (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)